THE 2002 EARTH SUMMIT IN AFRICA

The United States adopted a defensive and conservative strategy at the Earth Summit in Johannesburg in September. The Bush administration refused to make any changes to international agreements on trade and development finance. As early as November 2001, the American delegation worked to protect the trade consensus reached in meetings of the World Trade Organization in the Qatari capital Doha. Bush administration officials also reached an agreement at a United Nations conference on development financing in Monterrey in Mexico in March 2002.

Some developing countries tried to renegotiate the Doha and Monterrey documents, either to commit rich countries to give more aid or to dilute the requirement that governments adopt “good governance.” But a White House official claimed that the decisions agreed to at Doha and Monterrey we achieved a consensus.(Reuters, August 22, 2002)

The 10-day Earth Summit in Johannesburg in the fall of 2002 had been set up by the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. One of the planks of that convention was trying to reduce emerging economies’ reliance on fossil fuels. Some argued that Rio helped pave the way for the Kyoto protocol on cutting carbon dioxide emissions. However, carbon dioxide emissions have risen by nearly 10 percent since Rio.

Sixty-five thousand representing 185 countries met in Johannesburg in August and September of 2002. The purpose was to reconcile development and economic growth with environmental sustainability. The organizers said the summit was to “conserve our natural resources in a world that is growing in population, with ever-increasing demands for food, water, shelter, sanitation, energy, health services, and economic security.” The summit took place against a backdrop of famine in southern Africa, caused partly by climate change, which is reducing rainfall, and a lack of clean water and sanitation.

Bush was one of the few world leaders to skip the conference, and the United States was widely viewed as the key obstacle to setting firm targets on issues such as bolstering the use of renewable energy sources. Representing the United States, Secretary of State Powell was met with a chorus of heckling and boos, as he defended Bush’s record on aiding the poor and protecting the environment on the final day. The protests began when Powell mentioned the threat of famine in southern Africa and singled out Zimbabwe for making the problem worse with its “lack of respect for human rights and the rule of law.” The protests continued as Powell criticized Zambia, another hunger-stricken southern African nation, for refusing food aid in the form of genetically modified corn, and when he linked free trade to development and insisted that the United States was committed to halting global warming.

Despite pressure from the European Union, no targets were set for the use of renewable energy and, to the disappointment of developing nations hoping to break into export markets, the EU and the United States did not agree to phase out their most important subsidies.

Agreements were made to halve the 2 billion people living without clean water by 2015, to set up a solidarity fund to wipe out poverty, to restore depleted fish stocks by 2015 and to reduce the loss of species by 2015.

After bitter conflicts, 65,000 delegates from 185 nations reached agreement on a broad plan to bring clean water, sanitation, and energy to the world’s poor without further degrading the planet. But many delegates and environmentalists had hoped on increasing the use of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power. In the end, the United States and oil-producing allies succeeded in stonewalling proposals that would have placed a financial burden on corporate America.

The world’s poorer nations wanted more aid -- building on the modest commitments they gained at Rio -- with some asking for more money to protect the environment. They also wanted greater trade liberalization, especially in agriculture where many of the rich, northern-hemisphere countries impose huge tariffs. They could not compete with farmers in the wealthy nations who receive more than $200 billion in subsidies -- several times more than poor countries received in aid payments.

They also wanted sustainable water resources - developing countries are facing a severe lack of clean water. At the current rate, the world’s water was to run out in three decades and -- at present -- some 2 million children under five were dying every year from drinking dirty water.

On the other hands, the more wealthy nations asked for liberalization in in markets such as electronic goods and services. They also were interested, to a degree, in sustainable development -- but not at a huge economic cost. They also wanted to protect their economies.

The battle between rich nations of the north and poor nations in the south dominated the talks on the environment and development. The Bush administration was the main obstacle to progress. Once again, most of the nations accused the United States as being the world’s richest nation and biggest polluter, responsible for about 25 percent of emissions of globe-warming gases. And again, the White House was criticized for pulling out of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol -- to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases responsible for global climate change.

“We don’t seem to be making progress. We seem to be backsliding,” said Michael Strauss, a spokesman for a coalition of environmental and activist groups. (Los Angeles Times, September 3, 2002)

Saufatu Sopoanga, prime minister of Tuvalu, pleaded for the survival of his tiny South Pacific island nation, which was being washed away by rising sea levels and severe storms that scientists attribute to increasing global temperatures. He called for binding commitments to reducing emissions of fossil fuels.

But the new plan did little to advance the cause of reducing emissions from burning fossil fuels. The language fell short of what was sought by many nations to promote the Kyoto Protocol for curbing emissions, or even to reduce reliance on fossil fuels.

One of the final sticking points was the fight over establishing specific goals and timetables to increase the world’s reliance on alternative energy -- such as solar or wind power or small hydroelectric plants. The European Union proposed a worldwide pledge that 15 percent of all energy would be from these renewable sources by 2010.

The United States and some oil-producing countries opposed specific percentages or timetables. The American delegation was worried about what this might cost the United States, which consumed 11 percent of its energy from renewable sources -- and most of that from large hydroelectric plants that some critics considered not “green” enough to qualify. (Washington Post, September 5, 2002; The Guardian, September 4, 2002)